A radical view?

I got the Oct/Nove issue of the Treasures mag with my Reach Me pack the other day and i was shocked at this statement from the editor...

"...Dr simon rowley says parents should do everything possible to spend the first two years at home with their babies. I dont think the evidence we've uncovered is strong enough to back such a radical view."

When did staying at home with your baby become radical? Am i that out of touch? Or is she?



And i will add a disclaimer here - this is not to get at mothers who do have their kids in daycare at all. Most of you know i dont understand the daycare thing but it doesnt mean i dont get why some mothers have no choice.

I'll probably be in the daycare before 2 category, I don't think staying home for the first 2 years is 'radical' I always thought its the 'ideal' option if you can do it.

I know there are a number of reasons why mum's can't or don't want to.

If I have the choice I'd love to stay home with my child till they're 2.
Considering it was the norm to stay home till you child went to school up until recently, some might consider day care to be the more 'radical' idea.

Havn't read Treasures but it does sound a bit bias on the point of view from the editor.

meh. We did everything possible to stay home with both kids for the first few years. it didn't mean we could,m but we did what was possible.

BUT for number three, since he/she will be planned, we will also plan to have a parent at home for the first 2 years.

Personally I get having to put kids in daycare cause that is just the way things turned out...i don't get people who plan for a kid, knowing it will in fulltime daycare from three months

I started responding to this but this topic gets my back up entirely so Im just going to shut up

Everything possible is a strong statement, I wouldn't have said radical though.

I did find the article a bit one sided so perhaps her comment was also made in reference to the content of the article which I guess could be bordering on radical...by being onesided.

caitlynsmygirl wrote: lol at the word radical,I know its completley immature of me , but it always reminds me of The teenage mutant ninja turtles and makesme want to yell "cowabunga dude !!!" thats my helpful input

I swear I'm not stalking you Kelly, but "Cowabunga" Awesome!

ok now that I have had dinner and chocolate

I was taken back by the editors comment that it was radical and why I agree somewhat with the ideal of being a stay at home mum, I didnt agree with the doctors reasons completely, to some extent but not completely.
As we all know every child is different and different environments work for some and not others, as is every Mum different, and what ever choices a parent makes dosent change that they are loving parents.

Be it sanity , love or finances, I think the choice of child care is influenced alot by sacrifice - something which all parents are very familiar with.
I think it was rough that 2 professionals implied such an opinion, when we are already under enough pressure to make 'the right' choices for our babies.

thats my pc version of my 2 cents

For the sake of informed debate - *I am not weighing in with my opinion* - here are some of the the original articles that was printed in the Herald / Sunday Star Times, the Treasures article followed this one (I believe).

herald article

Sunday Star

 

i'm not debating daycare vs SAHM, just the thought that staying home or trying to stay home for 12 years is "radical".

No matter which expert you listen to they will always be able to come up with the data to support whichever side they support!

Edited by Bizzy